On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 7:22 PM Troy Dawson <tdawson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I see your point. It sometimes also happens when the EPEL package is a dependency of the important package, the customers aren't actually asking for the EPEL package. While I am sure that occasionally RH chooses to add a package to RHEL just because they think it is a good idea[0], I would expect that these days adding a package is mostly about customer requirements[1], even if it is an indirect requirement (even as a dependency of a dependency of a dependency). I think your new wording is fine. There will of course still be a few EPEL maintainers who will ask the question of "why now?", but those are likely to be few enough to handle on a case by case basis. Thanks. [0] Although I suspect that is not a common occurrence, as few organizations want to add to their ongoing support burden without something more formal than a whim. [1] Formal requests, or easily anticipated requests based on industry technology directions, and/or from the various industry advisory boards. _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
